http://www.jewishworldreview.com --Fade In. A street scene in South Central Los Angeles. At a bus stop, a
young, single, frazzled-looking mother hands her two-year-old son to her
seven-year-old daughter and kisses them. She boards the bus—for an
hour-and-a-half commute to a minimum-wage job. As the door closes, she
waves goodbye. The camera follows the children as they walk down the
block of urban blight. They pass young, menacing-looking unemployed men
hanging out, boarded-up stores, vacant lots protected by razor wire,
liquor stores with bars across the windows.

The camera leaves the
children and pans out of the neighborhood, through the streets of Los
Angeles, down affluent, shop-lined Rodeo Dr., through Beverly Hills,
down Sunset Blvd., across the San Diego Freeway and into the hilly
neighborhoods of L.A.’s rich and famous. It travels past a front gate
and up a long driveway. It moves into a mansion, through the foyer, then
a well-decorated living room and into a wood-paneled den. On the wall
are photographs of famous politicians, each one a liberal Democrat, each
one posing with a good-looking fellow with shaggy hair. We then see this
fellow sitting on a couch. Before him are copies of The New York Times
and The Washington Post. CNN is on the television. The phone is ringing.

He is looking at it, obviously pondering a matter of grave importance...
Warren Beatty is waiting for a callback. Two weeks ago, JWR
columnist Arianna Huffington asked Beatty if he might consider reprising
his most recent cinematic role—in which he played a senator who becomes
so fed up with the money-tainted political system that he begins rapping
the truth—but this time in real life. Beatty’s film Bulworth promoted
his belief that federal government is in hock to corporate special
interests and can’t, consequently, address such major problems as
inadequate health care, dramatic income inequity in a booming economy,
and environmental despoliation. He told Huffington that he was
disappointed with the Democratic Party—whose candidates he’s been
assisting for decades—and that there was a need for a populist,
tell-the-people-the-truth voice in this presidential election.

“There
has to be someone better [than me],” he said. “There has to be someone
else. But something has to be done.”

Huffington reported his remarks and tossed out the notion of a President
Bulworth, played by Beatty. Thus was born the Beatty for President
boomlet.

Beatty as Bulworth

Huffington was flooded with e-mails from people who wanted to
contribute. Beatty started talking to progressive policy advocates and
politicos. He was contacted by representatives of the Reform Party.

Within days, he was at nine percent in a poll of Democratic primary
voters, 11 percent in a survey of general election voters. Maureen Dowd
dissed the idea, asserting he was too much of a control freak to submit
himself to the chaos of a campaign. Alec Baldwin, another potential
thespian-pol, thumbed his nose at Beatty: “I would think if he’s really
serious, he’d go for something else first.”

Libs across the country weighed the pros and cons. Here’s a guy who
could draw the spotlight to the institutional corruption that perverts
our democracy. But: What would it say about the left if it can only put
forward as a leader a pretty-boy actor? Is a rich Hollywood poohbah the
best advocate for a minimum wage increase? Still: Isn’t it better to
have any voice in the national discourse afforded by a presidential
campaign? Yet: Would a Beatty campaign end up being more about Beatty
than Beatty’s issues? And what’s on the table? Would he run as a
Democrat or independent? Might he try for the Reform Party nomination?

Hey, it’s August—political reporters have to write and jabber about
something other than George W. Bush and cocaine. I covered W-and-coke
weeks ago and am glad to see it become so prominent a matter that it’s
now referred to as “The Question.”

To date, this presidential race has not yielded much of a national
debate on the basics. Who’s asking why one-fifth of all American
children are living in poverty at a time of economic prosperity? Why 43
million Americans do not have health insurance? Why we allow insurance
bureaucrats to run the health care system? Or who controls the power in
Washington? Gore vs. Bradley is the policy equivalent of Coke vs. Pepsi.

The Republican intellectual contest has been smothered by Bush’s
Texas-sized bankroll. No one is swinging as hard at the political system
as Beatty-as-Bulworth did. And what’s more preposterous—a magazine
publisher running for president or an actor-producer-director-writer
doing the same? If Steve Forbes can be regarded seriously, there’s room
for Beatty. And unlike Bush or Forbes, Beatty is a self-made success,
not a daddy’s boy.

The media may fixate more on Beatty’s celebrity than his cause, but at
least they won’t have to chase after the secrets of his personal life.
If he greenlights this project, Beatty’ll be guaranteed a chance to
share his ideas with the public: on Larry King Live; on the Today show;
on Nightline; on Rosie. On BET, MTV, NPR, PBS. What producer or booker
won’t want him as a guest? He’ll get a platform. Then people will either
call his 800 number, send money, check out his website, or they won’t.

An interesting question is where Beatty will mount his challenge, should
he throw his Dick Tracy fedora into the ring. Would he try to shake up
the Democratic primary? Several people talking to him say that seems to
be his inclination. “He goes all the way back to the Kennedys,” says one
of Beatty’s political advisers. “Asking him to step away from that is
pretty damn tough.”

But if Beatty’s message is Bulworth’s message (in the movie, Bulworth
tells a reporter, “Republicans, Democrats, what’s the difference? It’s a
club. Why don’t we just have a drink?”) then he shouldn’t bother with
the Democrats. Why try to work inside a party that’s part of the
problem, especially if that entails going up against a sitting vice
president? “The fundamental message of Bulworth is what Warren
believes,” says his pal Pat Caddell, a political
consultant-turned-producer. “It’s that politics is irrelevant to
people’s lives and won’t be fixed from the inside. It has to be someone
from the outside.” Beatty, he reports, has been shifting his view from
that of a liberal Democrat to that of an outraged outsider: “He has
gotten more and more upset in recent years. He sees that the system
cannot correct itself.” If things are that rotten, why waste time trying
to save a worthless party from its own vice president?

Perot

To effectively challenge the two halves of a corrupt political duopoly,
it might be best for Beatty to remain free of both. Toward that end,
there is a vehicle he can use—or hijack: the Reform Party. Ross Perot’s
creation is mostly an empty shell with a mixed pedigree, but it does
offer a maverick presidential candidate one strong benefit: $12 million.

Because the party’s candidate—Perot—scored more than five percent in the
last presidential contest, the party’s nominee in 2000 is entitled to
about $12 million in federal funds (the GOP and Democratic nominees will
receive much more) plus a convention allotment, which would go a long
way toward funding a protest, get-out-the-message campaign. And while
Beatty’s liberal politics do not mesh with those of most Reform Party
members (Perot’s the ultimate square) his core
issue—money-and-politics—is the party’s core issue. Beatty and some
RPers might find common cause in their skepticism toward NAFTA and other
corporate-friendly trade pacts.

At the moment, there’s a scuffle going on in the party between
Perotistas and Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura’s posse. Beatty would not
want to jump into the middle of that. But although he and Ventura are
hardly soulmates (though both are actors), Beatty has something to offer
the Body. Ventura needs a Reform Party nominee who can bag more than
five percent of the vote so the party can qualify for federal support in
2004. The Body has said he intends to keep his promise to Minnesotans
and not seek the presidency in 2000, but he must be contemplating
options for the next go-round. He might be willing to lend the party to
Beatty for a campaign that puts money-and-politics at center stage and
has a chance of meeting the five-percent threshold.

Perot is not likely to countenance such a step and might be more keen on
Pat Buchanan, who refuses to rule out a bid for the Reform Party
nomination should his Republican efforts founder. Would Beatty want to
engage in the spectacle of a Reform Party primary battle against
Buchanan? There’s a price for saving one’s country that no man should be
expected to pay. Ventura has said repeatedly he is not in favor of
nominating Buchanan, noting that the Reform Party does not cotton to
Buchanan’s far-right social views. But Ventura probably also realizes
that if Buchanan is granted temporary rights to the Reform Party, he
might not hand it back to Ventura after the election. One can easily
imagine a sectarian Buchanan putsch that, Bolshevik-style, takes over
the party. Pitchfork Pat does have brigades enough to make an attempt at
a Body slam.

Does Mr. Shampoo want to venture into this sort of rat’s nest, or even
hobnob with the Brylcreem crowd of the Reform Party? Probably not. But
it’s worth considering. He could also go independent and adopt the Jerry
Brown model. With his 800 number and $100 contribution limit, the former
California governor/renegade Democrat raised $11 million during his 1992
anti-Big Money presidential bid. As an independent, Beatty could be
expected to have similar fundraising success. (Even as he preaches
against the evils of money in the political system, he is going to need
cash—but clean cash—to finance his effort.) By running for the Reform
Party nomination or as an independent, Beatty would provide his campaign
with an internal consistency. If he is going to kick some butt, he may
as well kick all the way.

Democratic Party officials in Washington are “wigged out” about a
possible Beatty candidacy, according to one Capitol Hill Democrat, who
reports that party officials are trying to woo Beatty with a House seat.
Be our nominee against Republican Rep. Mary Bono, the Democrats have
suggested to Beatty. But that’s slightly demeaning: He’d have to
campaign in Palm Springs and against the widow of Sonny Bono. Where’s
the grandeur in that? How does that refashion politics as we know it? At
this stage, the Democrats don’t consider Beatty a threat to Gore, but
they fret that a Beatty campaign might steal away some of the top
liberal moneybags of L.A. Television producer Norman Lear, for one, has
said, “I don’t see out there in either party, on the left or the right,
anybody representing the bulk of the American people. The closest I’ve
seen is Bulworth.”

Beatty representing America’s bulk? He’s been reluctant to make such a
claim. Some who know him are warning those intrigued by a Beatty
candidacy that he can be diffident and indecisive. “He can’t make up his
mind about who to have dinner with,” says one L.A. liberal politico
who’s worked with him. “I don’t think he can maintain the rigors of
campaigning. Yes, very few people can get attention for these issues.
Wouldn’t it be fun? Well, for a month. Then reality would hit.” Stanley
Scheinbaum, the millionaire dean of L.A. liberalism and a Beatty friend,
told The Washington Post, “What can I say [about a Beatty/Bulworth run]?

He’s a star. It serves his purpose. He’s very serious, but I also think
he’s having fun.” Scheinbaum guessed that Beatty, in the end, will not
shout, “Action!” Beatty, he says, is “taking advantage of the podium.”
But in the past week, I’ve spoken with others who have talked with
Beatty since this bubble materialized, and they’ve been impressed with
his intelligence, depth, command of political issues and apparent
sincerity.

As of this writing, Beatty hasn’t revealed any timetable for a decision.
He’s told confidantes that he intends to pen a few op-eds as he mulls
away. In part, he’s assessing the reaction to the trial balloon
Huffington let loose. “He doesn’t need to be a sacrificial lamb,”
Caddell says. “He’s waiting to see if other people come forward who want
to join in. If so, then it’s not just he’s crazy, but they’re all
crazy.” In other words, there’s sanity in numbers.

A Beatty campaign could be an humiliating flameout, but recall how Ross
Perot, a madman, made the budget deficit the number-one issue on the
national agenda by running for president in 1992. Might Beatty do
likewise for money-and-politics? Probably not, but no one else is
willing to give it an all-out try. (Consumer advocate Ralph Nader, a
veteran critic of the special interest lock on Washington, is thinking
about running as a part-time candidate for the Green Party.) Many of the
pundits and gatekeepers will cry that any serious treatment of a Beatty
candidacy only further trivializes politics and signals one more triumph
of the culture of celebrity. True, but when the political system is so
far gone—Bush is the GOP leader because a handful of Texas millionaires
raised $37 million for him; Forbes is in the race because he inherited
hundreds of millions; Buchanan is a contender because he scowls at
people like me on television; and too much of Washington is controlled
by a small gaggle of political funders and corporate lobbyists—why worry
about a lack of respectability? I’d like to see what would happen if
Bulworth jumped off the screen and took his rap to voters, not just
viewers.

It couldn’t be any more embarrassing than
Ishtar.

JWR contributor David Corn, Washington Editor of The
Nation, writes the "Loyal Opposition" column for The New York Press.